Dataset Information

Evidence to Support Inclusion of Pharmacogenetic Biomarkers in Randomised Controlled Trials.

ABSTRACT: Pharmacogenetics and biomarkers are becoming normalised as important technologies to improve drug efficacy rates, reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions, and make informed choices for targeted therapies. However, their wider clinical implementation has been limited by a lack of robust evidence. Suitable evidence is required before a biomarker's clinical use, and also before its use in a clinical trial. We have undertaken a review of five pharmacogenetic biomarker-guided randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and evaluated the evidence used by these trials to justify biomarker inclusion. We assessed and quantified the evidence cited in published rationale papers, or where these were not available, obtained protocols from trial authors. Very different levels of evidence were provided by the trials. We used these observations to write recommendations for future justifications of biomarker use in RCTs and encourage regulatory authorities to write clear guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Johnson D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6789450 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evidence to Support Inclusion of Pharmacogenetic Biomarkers in Randomised Controlled Trials.

Johnson Danielle D Hughes Dyfrig D Pirmohamed Munir M Jorgensen Andrea A

Journal of personalized medicine 20190901 3

Pharmacogenetics and biomarkers are becoming normalised as important technologies to improve drug efficacy rates, reduce the incidence of adverse drug reactions, and make informed choices for targeted therapies. However, their wider clinical implementation has been limited by a lack of robust evidence. Suitable evidence is required before a biomarker's clinical use, and also before its use in a clinical trial. We have undertaken a review of five pharmacogenetic biomarker-guided randomised contro ...[more]

PMID: 31480618

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Low back pain is a common health complaint resulting in substantial economic burden. Each year, upwards of 20 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for non-specific low back pain are published. Use of the term non-specific low back pain has been criticised on the grounds of encouraging heterogeneity and hampering interpretation of findings due to possible heterogeneous causes, challenging meta-analyses. We explored selection criteria used in trials of treatments for nsLBP. METHODS:A systematic review of English-language reports of RCTs in nsLBP population samples, published between 2006 and 2012, identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases, using a mixed-methods approach to analysis. Study inclusion and exclusion criteria were extracted, thematically categorised, and then descriptive statistics were used to summarise the prevalence by emerging category. RESULTS:We included 168 studies. Two inclusion themes (anatomical area, and symptoms and signs) were identified. Anatomical area was most reported as between costal margins and gluteal folds (n =?8, 5%), while low back pain (n =?150, 89%) with or without referred leg pain (n =?27, 16%) was the most reported symptom. Exclusion criteria comprised 21 themes. Previous or scheduled surgery (n =?84, 50%), pregnancy (n =?81, 48%), malignancy (n =?78, 46%), trauma (n =?63, 37%) and psychological conditions (n =?58, 34%) were the most common. Sub-themes of exclusion criteria mostly related to neurological signs and symptoms: nerve root compromise (n =?44, 26%), neurological signs (n =?34, 20%) or disc herniation (n =?30, 18%). Specific conditions that were most often exclusion criteria were spondylolisthesis (n =?35, 21%), spinal stenosis (n =?31, 18%) or osteoporosis (n =?27, 16%). CONCLUSION:RCTs of interventions for non-specific low back pain have incorporated diverse inclusion and exclusion criteria. Guidance on standardisation of inclusion and exclusion criteria for nsLBP trials will increase clinical homogeneity, facilitating greater interpretation of between-trial comparisons and meta-analyses. We propose a template for reporting inclusion and exclusion criteria.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Randomised controlled trials (RCT) are the gold standard to provide unbiased data. However, when patients have a treatment preference, randomisation may influence participation and outcomes (eg, external and internal validity). The aim of this study was to assess the influence of patients' preference in RCTs by analysing partially randomised patient preference trials (RPPT); an RCT and preference cohort combined. DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:RPPTs published between January 2005 and October 2018 reporting on allocation of patients to randomised and preference cohorts were included. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS:Two independent reviewers extracted data. The main outcomes were the difference in external validity (participation and baseline characteristics) and internal validity (lost to follow-up, crossover and the primary outcome) between the randomised and the preference cohort within each RPPT, compared in a meta-regression using a Wald test. Risk of bias was not assessed, as no quality assessment for RPPTs has yet been developed. RESULTS:In total, 117 of 3734 identified articles met screening criteria and 44 were eligible (24 873 patients). The participation rate in RPPTs was >95% in 14 trials (range: 48%-100%) and the randomisation refusal rate was >50% in 26 trials (range: 19%-99%). Higher education, female, older age, race and prior experience with one treatment arm were characteristics of patients declining randomisation. The lost to follow-up and cross-over rate were significantly higher in the randomised cohort compared with the preference cohort. Following the meta-analysis, the reported primary outcomes were comparable between both cohorts of the RPPTs, mean difference 0.093 (95% CI -0.178 to 0.364, p=0.502). CONCLUSIONS:Patients' preference led to a substantial proportion of a specific patient group refusing randomisation, while it did not influence the primary outcome within an RPPT. Therefore, RPPTs could increase external validity without compromising the internal validity compared with RCTs. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42019094438.

Project description:BackgroundThe Levels of Evidence Rating System is widely believed to categorize studies by quality, with Level I studies representing the highest quality evidence. We aimed to determine the reporting quality of Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) published in the most frequently cited general orthopaedic journals.MethodsTwo assessors identified orthopaedic journals that reported a level of evidence rating in their abstracts from January 2003 to December 2004 by searching the instructions for authors of the highest impact general orthopaedic journals. Based upon a priori eligibility criteria, two assessors hand searched all issues of the eligible journal from 2003-2004 for RCTs. The assessors extracted the demographic information and the evidence rating from each included RCT and scored the quality of reporting using the reporting quality assessment tool, which was developed by the Cochrane Bone, Joint and Muscle Trauma Group. Scores were conducted in duplicate, and we reached a consensus for any disagreements. We examined the correlation between the level of evidence rating and the Cochrane reporting quality score.ResultsWe found that only the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery - American Volume (JBJS-A) used a level of evidence rating from 2003 to 2004. We identified 938 publications in the JBJS-A from January 2003 to December 2004. Of these publications, 32 (3.4%) were RCTs that fit the inclusion criteria. The 32 RCTs included a total of 3543 patients, with sample sizes ranging from 17 to 514 patients. Despite being labelled as the highest level of evidence (Level 1 and Level II evidence), these studies had low Cochrane reporting quality scores among individual methodological safeguards. The Cochrane reporting quality scores did not differ significantly between Level I and Level II studies. Correlations varied from 0.0 to 0.2 across the 12 items of the Cochrane reporting quality assessment tool (p > 0.05). Among items closely corresponding to the Levels of Evidence Rating System criteria assessors achieved substantial agreement (ICC = 0.80, 95% CI:0.60 to 0.90).ConclusionOur findings suggest that readers should not assume that 1) studies labelled as Level I have high reporting quality and 2) Level I studies have better reporting quality than Level II studies. One should address methodological safeguards individually.

Dataset Information

Evidence to Support Inclusion of Pharmacogenetic Biomarkers in Randomised Controlled Trials.

Publications

Evidence to Support Inclusion of Pharmacogenetic Biomarkers in Randomised Controlled Trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets